Politically Correct Sensitivity vs. Parody -- how close to the line is "oops, too close?"

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

I have a fantastic idea for a t-shirt involving grammar nazis... but the shirt's design looks like a swastika.

So I'm torn. I think the idea's brilliant (biased a little, perhaps), and I think it's cute enough that people might buy it. But at the same time, I'm *very* aware of the controversy the swastika itself presents.

Are there some items that are so raw they can't be successfully parodied? Is that one of those "Too soon" things?

What do you think?

Monkey · Apr 27, 2012

I wouldn't wear it, but only because people process images much more quickly (and from a farther distance) than they do words, and the associations with that image are instantaneous and revolting.

Xelebes · Apr 27, 2012

Unofortunately, the swastika as a symbol represents bias and contempt for post-mercantilism and there is little else the usage of the swastika can be used for, except for strict interpretations of prior uses in religious settings.

kayleamay · Apr 27, 2012

I don't think there's anything amusing enough to make me want me to don a swastika. I'm not easily offended, but the sight of swastikas make my stomach churn.

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I mean, damn. It's a cool idea, but maybe it's just the wrong timing or something.

I'll build out the graphic and post it (if that's ok with the mods) to get more feedback, but I'm thinking this idea may need to be shelved in our current cultural environment.

fireluxlou · Apr 27, 2012

Well I'd think it'd just be common sense to not do that, just common courtesy. It hasn't been that long since WW2. I don't like the term nazi attatched to any word really, I think it trivalises what the nazis did and equates people who are fussy with grammar to horrific people somewhat and is insensitive to survivors and children and families of survivors. In fact I don't know any situation where it would be appropriate anyway.

People will see the big swastika, t-shirt and they will think you're a skinhead or neo-nazi because they're the only people in public who still use the swastika, they won't take notice of the words on the shirt.

Stiger05 · Apr 27, 2012

I agree with what everyone else has said, but wanted to add that neo-Nazi groups still use the swastika. When I see it that's where my mind automatically goes. I think there would be a pretty big uproar.

ETA: drafted my post while fireluxlou was posting, so my point has already been made, sorry.

Nymtoc · Apr 27, 2012

Lose the swastika.

JWGriebel · Apr 27, 2012

Is it something like this?

http://liberdiscordia.blogspot.com/2011/04/grammar-nazi-concentration-camps-being.html

If so, I believe it may be a little touchy. Even if the sign is completely different (as the one in that link is), many people will make the association straight off by just getting a glimpse. And you have to think, how many people actually take a close look at your tee-shirt versus how many see a glimpse, where the sign would look very much like a swastika.

Monkey · Apr 27, 2012

Actually, for what it is, I think the image in JW's link is pretty perfect.

It gives the impression and draws the eye but (IMO) is very obviously not a swastika. I still wouldn't wear it, but I think it works.

Maxinquaye · Apr 27, 2012

There's also this:

http://ohinternet.com/Grammar_Nazi

It gives the colours and the pattern, but doesn't use the swastika.

Monkey · Apr 27, 2012

Pssst...that's the same one.

benbradley · Apr 27, 2012

dclary said:
I have a fantastic idea for a t-shirt involving grammar nazis... but the shirt's design looks like a swastika.

So I'm torn. I think the idea's brilliant (biased a little, perhaps), and I think it's cute enough that people might buy it. But at the same time, I'm *very* aware of the controversy the swastika itself presents.

Are there some items that are so raw they can't be successfully parodied? Is that one of those "Too soon" things?

What do you think?

fireluxlou said:
Well I'd think it'd just be common sense to not do that, just common courtesy. It hasn't been that long since WW2.

It's not just that it's too soon - it's not JUST the length of time - the Hindenburg disaster in which dozens died happened in 1937, about the same time period, and I've been hearing the catchphrase from the announcer telling of the deaths "Oh, the humanity!" as an ironic joke for mildly negative things for many decades.

But the Hindenburg was an accident resulting in the deaths of several dozen people and a horror in the lives of those who survived and saw it, and as tragic as it was, it's a lot easier to fathom than millions intentionally put to death.

Stiger05 said:
I agree with what everyone else has said, but wanted to add that neo-Nazi groups still use the swastika.

They're using it because they don't care who they insult or offend. I don't think there are any such symbols that are illegal in the USA, but I believe the swastika is illegal in Germany. I know trading in holocaust-related or Nazi-related items is illegal in Germany, and sites such as eBay don't allow such items to be listed for sale through it in any country. A lot about WWII, the Nazis and the Holocaust are understandably VERY sensitive subjects in Germany, as well as many other parts of the world.

JWGriebel said:
Is it something like this?

http://liberdiscordia.blogspot.com/2011/04/grammar-nazi-concentration-camps-being.html

If so, I believe it may be a little touchy. Even if the sign is completely different (as the one in that link is), many people will make the association straight off by just getting a glimpse. And you have to think, how many people actually take a close look at your tee-shirt versus how many see a glimpse, where the sign would look very much like a swastika.

That "G" is clearly a modification of the swastika - it's at the 45 degree angle, and is in a white circle within a red square, which is absolutely reminiscent of the patch worn by the Nazi troops.

I go with the consensus so far in this thread. The swastika, or anything reminiscent of it, is in really bad taste and socially unacceptable for any use other than history class.

I've mentioned the "Oh, the humanity" phrase before. Here are a few older threads discussing whether something is "too politically incorrect:"
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71708
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205734

Stiger05 · Apr 27, 2012

benbradley said:
They're using it because they don't care who they insult or offend. I don't think there are any such symbols that are illegal in the USA, but I believe the swastika is illegal in Germany. I know trading in holocaust-related or Nazi-related items is illegal in Germany, and sites such as eBay don't allow such items to be listed for sale through it in any country. A lot about WWII, the Nazis and the Holocaust are understandably VERY sensitive subjects in Germany, as well as many other parts of the world.

Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't advocating the usage. I was trying to point out that it wasn't a dead symbol, that it has been carried forward by new groups and is still sensitive. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 27, 2012

You'll be Godwinning every conversation you're in.

Nazi is not a term to throw around lightly. It can be done successfully in humor. Mel Brooks did it. But you have to go incredibly far over the top and you'll still be a slash in the eye to a lot of people.

Which brings up the practical writing question: is this the best way to bring your point across to your audience or do you create too large a derail just from the image choice?

Kaiser-Kun · Apr 27, 2012

You could always call mexicans "the detritus of the world". That wouldn't make you look racist at all.

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

fireluxlou said:
Well I'd think it'd just be common sense to not do that, just common courtesy. It hasn't been that long since WW2. I don't like the term nazi attatched to any word really, I think it trivalises what the nazis did and equates people who are fussy with grammar to horrific people somewhat and is insensitive to survivors and children and families of survivors. In fact I don't know any situation where it would be appropriate anyway.

People will see the big swastika, t-shirt and they will think you're a skinhead or neo-nazi because they're the only people in public who still use the swastika, they won't take notice of the words on the shirt.

I have uncommon sense.

And it *has* been a long time since WWII. At this point, almost 3/4 of a century since it began.

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
You'll be Godwinning every conversation you're in.

Nazi is not a term to throw around lightly. It can be done successfully in humor. Mel Brooks did it. But you have to go incredibly far over the top and you'll still be a slash in the eye to a lot of people.

Which brings up the practical writing question: is this the best way to bring your point across to your audience or do you create too large a derail just from the image choice?

And that is, exactly the question of this post. But LOL @ the godwinning. I hadn't even considered that angle. LOL

RichardGarfinkle · Apr 27, 2012

dclary said:
I have uncommon sense.

And it *has* been a long time since WWII. At this point, almost 3/4 of a century since it began.

Speaking as someone brought up Jewish in the post Holocaust generation I can tell you that for a lot of people WWII was not as long ago in memory as you might think.

Maxinquaye · Apr 27, 2012

My grandfather fought in the battle of Narvik. There are houses in the little village where my grandparents lived in that stood empty and had bullet holes. It may be that Americans don't think that WW II is so close in time, but on this side of the pond you see reminders every single day of it.

Mara · Apr 27, 2012

dclary said:
I have uncommon sense.

And it *has* been a long time since WWII. At this point, almost 3/4 of a century since it began.

But there are still Neo-Nazis beating and killing people in Europe. They've become a serious problem in some areas. And they're still using the swastika as a symbol. So, rather than being a past problem, it's very much a current problem.

In general, when people see the swastika now, they don't think, "That reminds me of things that happened a long time ago." (Though it is still a very sensitive subject.) They generally think, "Is that guy a Neo-Nazi? Is he going to try to kill somebody?" (And yes, Neo-Nazis pretty commonly beat and kill people these days. It's not just marches and stupid websites. They're violent when they get a chance.)

It's kinda like, if there was a big obvious Al Qaeda symbol, people would get upset at you wearing it not because it reminds them of 9/11, but because they'd be scared you were going to commit a terrorist attack.

It really is sad how much that symbol got messed up, too. It's actually supposed to be a harmless and positive Hindu symbol (reversed from the Nazi direction means one thing, and the Nazi direction means a different thing that's still harmless and not Nazi-related). But the Nazis appropriated it because it looked cool and was popular with certain German soldiers at the time anyway.

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

Kaiser-Kun said:
You could always call mexicans "the detritus of the world". That wouldn't make you look racist at all.

Still beating that old drum, KK? If you're going to troll me, at least quote me correctly. I said illegal immigrants, and did not specify a nationality, although the topic at the time was (most likely, since we don't get a ton of threads about illegal Laotian immigration) about immigrants from Mexico.

If you're so concerned about how people view the poorest, most uneducated people in a nation being encouraged to come to the united states, maybe you could inquire as to why the Mexican government was publishing comic books about how to sneak into the US? (Which was, I think the topic du jour for the quote you've made your personal little jape).

Anyhoo, I'm here to talk about politics and CURRENT events. Digging up a dead horse from five years ago so you can beat it again isn't my idea of fun.

Opty · Apr 27, 2012

Off topic but whenever I hear the "immigration debate" rhetoric, especially down here in the South, I always think of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z__5iETP4Vg

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Speaking as someone brought up Jewish in the post Holocaust generation I can tell you that for a lot of people WWII was not as long ago in memory as you might think.

As a supporter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I fully understand that. It is nowhere near long ago in memory, especially for families of the men and women who suffered and died. My Grandfather flew B-17s over Germany, and my Great Uncle humped across Africa with Rommel. Neither man came back the same boy who left home. That war changed everybody it touched.

But it still happened long ago.

dclary · Apr 27, 2012

Mara said:
But there are still Neo-Nazis beating and killing people in Europe. They've become a serious problem in some areas. And they're still using the swastika as a symbol. So, rather than being a past problem, it's very much a current problem.

In general, when people see the swastika now, they don't think, "That reminds me of things that happened a long time ago." (Though it is still a very sensitive subject.) They generally think, "Is that guy a Neo-Nazi? Is he going to try to kill somebody?" (And yes, Neo-Nazis pretty commonly beat and kill people these days. It's not just marches and stupid websites. They're violent when they get a chance.)

It's kinda like, if there was a big obvious Al Qaeda symbol, people would get upset at you wearing it not because it reminds them of 9/11, but because they'd be scared you were going to commit a terrorist attack.

It really is sad how much that symbol got messed up, too. It's actually supposed to be a harmless and positive Hindu symbol (reversed from the Nazi direction means one thing, and the Nazi direction means a different thing that's still harmless and not Nazi-related). But the Nazis appropriated it because it looked cool and was popular with certain German soldiers at the time anyway.

Agree completely.

That's why this question. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could diffuse their symbol? Give it less power. I don't know about you, but putting the Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee didn't give more power to the slavery movement in the south. It made that symbol just a little more ridiculous. It looked cool, for reasons not related whatsoever to its previous intent.

Why can't we do that? If someone can take a symbol (or a word for that matter) and change it, why can't we take that symbol or word and change it back? There is a concerted effort in America that seems to be winning, as far as I can tell: in a very few short years, we've managed to get the world to think about the meaning of the word "marriage" -- and religious conservatives be damned, but the meaning is changing. I don't see why we can't do that for other terms and symbols -- ESPECIALLY those ones that have been used to hurt others.

Politically Correct Sensitivity vs. Parody -- how close to the line is "oops, too close?"

Unabashed Mercenary

Is me.

Delerium ex Ennui

I'm on the phone.

Unabashed Mercenary

Benefactor Member

Decrepit

Is me.

That cheeky buggerer

Is me.

It's a doggy dog world

Nurture Phoenixes

!

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Nurture Phoenixes

That cheeky buggerer

Clever User Title

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary